Talk:Socialist Labor Party of America

A call for more work to be done

This is an interesting topic; the article deserves a lot more work. Much of it is unclear and the information is minimal. Needs expansion and refinement by experts. Spleeman 09:29, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There has to be a lot of documentation somewhere (just not in my archives). Most non-SLP sources are hostile. The monograph by Girard & Perry (former members) may be the most sympathetic. Tribune 04:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Lede

The opening paragraph which explains the SLP's position on dictators, etc. is continually removed. But there is no reason for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashmcbean (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 April 2008

It actually states the history of the SLP's relationships with dictators (or rather their lack of such). It ought to be verifiable, and would be stronger with a third-party citation to support it. I'm inclined to leave it in there, stripped of the sniping at "other US leftist groups", which has nothing to do with the SLP itself. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I didn't realize that sounded like sniping, just a distinguishing feature of this party. Other leftist groups do praise Castro, Stalin, etc. but you're right, that has nothing to do with the SLP. Very good, thanks for the dialogue. SS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashmcbean (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuff that needs to be done

1. There needs to be a great expansion of the historical commentary -- early history, the 1899 split, the SLP and the Russian Revolution, and the SLP through the 1920s in particular.

2. There needs to be names of some of the leading luminaries brought into play -- Kuhn, Sanial, Olive Johnson, and so on.

3. There needs to be photos of party leaders -- DeLeon, Kuhn, Johnson, and Haas at a minimum. I think I have the latter 3 and DDL shouldn't be a tough "get".

4. The page shouldn't be an ad for the party. There's room for a discussion of "DeLeonism," obviously, but this was first and foremost a Marxist party, with DeLeon being its most influential member. This word "DeLeonism" is a recent creation, I believe. I think a more accurate phrasing would be "revolutionary industrial unionism."

5. A discussion of the industrial union ideas and their relationship to the IWW is needed.

Not sure how soon I can get to all of this but I hope to eventually if no one else picks up the ball.

Tim Davenport ---- Corvallis, OR ---- Carrite (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, the discussion of the 1899 split is really really bad and I'll take that on pretty quickly here. Photo of DDL now up. The SLP comrades should back off this page a little bit, it's still a long ways from Neutral Point Of View. Nobody is gonna kneecap ya, but this sounds too often like an ad rather than an encyclopedia article. Carrite (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Would be nice to see articles created for redlinked people. The P/VP candidates are certainly notable, and it would be nice to see vote totals entabulated for them and for at least the winning candidate of the election and his vote total. The redlinks in the list of notable members are somewhat problematic. Without articles already existing, and without sources as to why they were added as notable, vandalism could creep in. Happened to pick up a tiny bit of info from SSDI on Arla A. Albaugh: b 07 Mar 1906 d 15 Jan 2003 (V) 33309 Last Residence Fort Lauderdale, Broward, FL. Шизомби (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"anarcho-syndicalism?"

the introduction to this article has the following statement in it;

While the SLP maintains it is a socialist party, most observers agree their program is clearly anarcho-syndicalist.

That isn't exactly true, they propose they become the governing party, and you can't be anarchistic if you believe there should be a government. I don't think that sentance needs to be in there at all. --Mike Oosting (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not disolved

REQUEST: Please remove the text "Dissolved September 1, 2008" from the sidebar.

REASON: Although the SLP closed its national office in September 2008, the party has not "disolved". Publication of the party jorunal "The People" has moved online, where it continues (14 issues have been published since the alleged "dissolution" date given in the sidebar), and the party continues to accept both new members and contributions.

http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CxP-Socialist_Labor_Party_of_America.htm

http://www.slp.org/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the correction. Don't forget to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of them. --Stfg (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't stopped answering inquiries

I don't know who claims the party stopped answering inquiries in 2014, but today I wrote to the party's email address (as on their party website) and got an answer right away from party secretary Robert Bills, who says the party certainly hasn't dissolved and that it hasn't stopped answering inquiries either. Now, I knowthat "own research" doesn't count in Wikipedia articles, and I don't know how you would classify such an inquiry -- but fact is: the party is not dissolved and it does answer inquiries. I will change this, unless someone objects with convincing arguments. --Vesteinn (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

edited from "was" to "is" the ... 82.113.98.234 (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is the Labor Party?

The more familiar party by the name "Labor Party" to most involved in independent labor politics is . . . the Labor Party, not the SLP. Why does Labor Party (United States) redirect here, instead of to an entry on http://www.thelaborparty.org/ . . . ?

Split in the First International

The section mentioning the split is grossly oversimplified and the subject too complicated to be covered objectively in a sentence or two. Bakunin and his supporters advocated trade and industrial union organization as did Marx and his followers. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1871/program.htm The issue had more to do with political autonomy of the union organizations, although even that is an oversimplification.

Redirect for other names the party has used

Should there be redirects for Industrial Party (United States) and Industrial Government Party (United States) to this page? I've seen those names pop up on the old election data and wondered why they didn't already lead here. Have any other parties gone by that name in the US? Boux22 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please redirect those articles here. That is standard procedure.--User:Namiba 14:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

National Secretary Change?

It was changed and mentioned by a user with no account that Robert Bills, the old national secretary was removed in 2021. Thier are no sources or any information that I can find online to back up this claim. The website hasn't been updated in years, and while I have sent an email, no response. Really I cant find anything from this party past 2011, has it been dissolved since then? or de jure dissolved?(talk) 15:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Dissolution

Given the editor warring on the page, I am opening a discussion about the group's theoretical dissolution. User:Liberaltarian12345 argues that the party has dissolved but provides no evidence. User:Vif12vf argues that positive evidence is necessary to prove that the party has dissolved and I agree. Please discuss potential changes here rather than edit-warring on the main page.--User:Namiba 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "No evidence"? The evidence is literally RIGHT ON THE PAGE. National office closed down, 0 activity since. You are somehow taking that and claiming they are still around, u want to provide evidence they are still there be my guest. Otherwise based on the info provided it is obvious the party dissolved Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

You are assuming something that is not proven true by sources. Reliable sources are required on Wikipedia.--User:Namiba 13:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

They havent responded to my emails. I have sent a number of them to the email on their website and nothing. I asked about this very question, my above talk page comment. (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure CLOSING NATIONAL OFFICE AND 0 ACTIVITY SINCE qualifies as dissolved. If the source is unreliable, why is it on the page at all? Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like an interpretation. Please provide a source which explicitly states they have folded. — Czello 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It's literally ON THE PAGE. Party closes office. No activity since. THE END. This is literally so cut and dry its actually really pathetic that this is even an argument. I guess we gotta go edit the Federalist Party page because there is no source saying they folded. Bull Moose Party too while we are at it. People's Party, Greenback Party, Silver Party, Wisconsin Progressive Party, etc etc.

I will do you one better. ANY PERSON POSTING THEY ARE STILL AROUND, should probably provide a source they are still around that somehow goes against the source that is literally on the page. The one you have already verified as reliable enough to be included, bu tis somehow unreliable enough to count as proof the party dissolved, even though that is literally what happened.... Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for this? I've gone on their website and can't see any mention of them folding. — Czello 07:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A PARTY THAT HAD 77 MEMBERS NATIONWIDE CLOSING THEIR ONLY NATIONAL OFFICE AND LITERALLY NEVER DOING ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY SINCE, IS THE PROOF.

It is in the article that they closed down their office, if they were active wouldn't the website be any more active? "Here's are candidates, here's our latest activity, etc". The party was already on a decline up to that point, they faded into obscurity like a lot of parties before it. Federalists, Peoples Party, Bull Moose Party. If you are gonna say no mention of them folding means they are still around, guess we got a lot of articles to redo Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you source this article please? Also please read WP:SHOUT — Czello 15:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It's literally on the page already. RIGHT NEXT TO THE PART WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT IT (I didn't need an article to know I am shouting, that was the idea....)

http://ballot-access.org/2008/12/31/socialist-labor-party-closes-office/

With the context of the rest of the Page and The SLP's history I do not grasp how anyone can see this as anything BUT a dissolution Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The SLP has an active Twitter account and website, which are signs of activity. In order to prove the SLP has dissolved, you need verifiable sources. The absence of sources does not definitively prove anything. That's how Wikipedia work. Find a source or leave it alone.--User:Namiba 15:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The website has not been updated since 2011. No new online papers, comments, nothing. (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The point is that you shouldn't be shouting. It's just Wikipedia, chill. — Czello 16:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That Twitter Account has no relation to the SLP. I asked them what there relation to the previous SLP was and they blocked me. They are people Larping as a dead party. Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence this twitter isn't associated with the party? Ultimately I'm not seeing concrete evidence that they've folded. All we have is a Wordpress account saying they've closed an office, which isn't definitive evidence. Their website is still up and doesn't imply they've ended, either. — Czello 16:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

An account from the most reliable 3rd Party source out there and NO ACTIVITY SINCE.

The Dole/Kemp site is still up; guess he's still running for Prez.....

The account literally spends it's time getting involved with twitter drama and promoting OTHER parties like the Greens and CPUSA. There was no activity before or after the account formed and they do not respond to questions regarding the party.

The SLP is dead, point blank. Show me the website posting a newsletter, party holding confrences, etc. Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles here. It seems a lot what you're saying comes down to interpretation, which is WP:OR. When we still have an active twitter account and nothing explicitly saying that they've disbanded, then I think this discussion is concluded. — Czello 22:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not interpretation: party clearly obviously dissolved since there has been not a single fucking thing they have done since closing their office when the party was already on the fucking decline. Discussion concluded now Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Until you have a citation that clearly says it, it doesn't get added. Wikipedia policy requires you source this adequately. — Czello 19:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The source is on the page already. A Party on the decline with only 77 members, closes down their ONLY OFFICE, shuts down their ONLY PUBLICATION, goes radio silent since doing both of those things all that remains that is officially verified to remain is a site that is literally dead.

"NO THEY ARE STILL AROUND THEY ARE"— Czello

If you want to go by this notion: Bull Moose and Federalists are still kicking it apparently Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, these are interpretations you're making. You're also continuing to ignore their active twitter account. I'm going to make this really simple for you, one more time: do you have a source which explicitly says they've disbanded? Find one, and I'll be more than happy to agree to this change. — Czello 19:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The account again makes no sense to be affiliated with them since the SLP disappeared in 2008 and all their members were old guard and 80.

BUT AGAIN: its on the page, right now. Right smack dab there. But for some reason, its valid enough to be there and clearly shows the one office closing down, THAT DOESN'T COUNT APPARENTLY.

Back to the Bull Moose page then, we need 100% verifiable information of Teddy roosevelt saying "On this date and time on this year, the party formally closes down" Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell me which source exactly says they've disbanded, rather than just closed an office? — Czello 20:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

They closed their only office. And closed their paper. AND stopped running candidates Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

So, no source then. You don't need to run a physical office to run a political party, and the other two points are irrelevant. I can sense this conversation is going to keep going in circles, so until you can find a source that actually states they have disbanded please read WP:V and WP:OR. — Czello 20:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The account again makes no sense to be affiliated with them since the SLP disappeared in 2008 and all their members were old guard and 80. - this sounds like more guesswork and WP:OR. — Czello 20:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Not guesswork: it is literally apparent if you look at the SLP's history Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That is WP:OR. — Czello 20:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we need to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. If you don't have a source, it can't be added. That said, following your own reasoning, I don't see an issue here. If "branch closing + zero activity" is as obvious as a sign that they've dissolved as you say it is, there really shouldn't be any problem with just stating that the branch is closed and there's no activity, and stopping there, allowing the reader to come to this obvious conclusion on their own. According to you, there's no other conclusion to come to, so the reader will have no problem figuring it out. Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You say that while the page has "This party is still active" on it.

That leads to a VERY different conclusion Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The same would apply to that as well then. If we can't find a reliable source verifying they're still active, that should be omitted or changed as well. (Speaking hypothetically here, I have no idea if there's a source that verifies it or not.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

We should change "though the party is still active." to "though the party has not dissolved" or something along those lines. Its a compromise between the two sides, and is much closer to the parties reality. LuNaCy (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

A closer to reality thing would be The party has since become dormant or The party has ceased activity or the party is inactive. Because that is what happened to the party Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree, great idea. The party has since become dormant is a good comprise and fits the actual reality of the party. LuNaCy (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I find this a reasonable compromise. — Czello 07:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

So I still win lol Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about winning. Also not sure how you can spin it like that when we both got what we want - that's what a compromise is. — Czello 07:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Winner winner chicken dinner :P Liberaltarian12345 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Was it an Anti-War Party or not?

The Wiki Pages for most other notable Socialist Parties including what their stances on WWI and WW2 were and Vietnam if it existed that long. KuudereKun 21:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Table line garbled

Line 1 of table "Presidential Tickets" is incomprehensible:

1. The article says the party "nominated its first candidate" for president in the 1892 election. Then why is the 1888 election listed in the table? 1888 isn't mentioned in that paragraph. Either delete line 1, or explain its meaning.

2. Not only is 1888 not in that paragraph, the year 1888 isn't mentioned anywhere in the article (except once, incidentally). If line 1 is legitimate, expand the scope of the article to cover your subject. For that matter, what other sub-topics are missing?

3. You say Simon Wing was the party's first presidential candidate. Then why isn't he the 1888 candidate? Again, either delete or explain.

4. In the 1888 election, what sense does it make for a party to run for president without a named candidate?

5. Column 2's heading is "Presidential nominee," singular. But the contents of row 2, cell 1 is "Slate of independent electors," i.e. a group of men, plural. Change the heading, or change the cell's wording, or both, to agree grammatically and logically.

6. What sense does it make for a group of men to run for a single office? Either yadda yadda or yadda yadda.

7. "Electors" [sic] don't run for president. They elect the president. What sense does it make for a party to run electors, not a candidate?

8. For that matter, what do you mean by electors? Do you mean electors for president, or electors for the party's candidate? If the latter, are you saying they never, say, got around to naming a candidate, and that's why you don't name any?

I give up. Fix this entire thing. I'm going out for coffee. Ya want some?

Jimlue (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)